All dosed subjects have to be analyzed [General Statistics]
❝ Is it also not acceptable to replace subjects even if the number of excluded subjects is more than the number of considered dropouts?
Acc. to the GL, yes.
❝ For example, if 7 subjects are withdrawn during the study after receiving the dose, and the number of considered dropouts are 5 subjects, is there any way we can replace 2 subjects that were withdrawn over the number of dropouts?
Two points:
- The impact of dropouts on power is overrated by many (you are not alone). An example with a dropout-rate of 15% and two less eligible subjects than anticipated:
Does it really matter? Remember that the sample estimation is based on assumptions – it’s not an exact calculation.
CV n power dosed eligible power.actual
0.20 20 0.8347 24 18 0.7912
0.25 28 0.8074 34 26 0.7761
0.30 40 0.8158 48 38 0.7953
0.35 52 0.8075 62 50 0.7917
-scrip at the end.
- If you would dose two subjects later, it could complicate the statistical model because periods differ. Of course, you could ignore that but I have seen nasty questions from regulators.
ibrary(PowerTOST)
up2even <- function(n, ns = 2) {
return(as.integer(ns * (n %/% ns + as.logical(n %% ns))))
}
nadj <- function(n, do.rate, ns = 2) {
return(as.integer(up2even(n / (1 - do.rate), ns)))
}
design <- "2x2x2"
CV <- seq(0.2, 0.35, 0.05)
theta0 <- 0.95 # T/R-ratio
target <- 0.80 # desired power
do.rate <- 0.15 # 15%
if (design == "parallel") {
ns <- 2L
} else {
ns <- as.integer(substr(design, 3, 3))
}
df <- data.frame(CV = CV, n = NA, power = NA,
dosed = NA, eligible = NA, power.actual = NA)
for (j in 1:nrow(df)) {
tmp <- sampleN.TOST(CV = CV[j], theta0 = theta0,
targetpower = target,
design = design, print = FALSE)
df[j, 2:3] <- tmp[7:8]
df[j, 4] <- nadj(df[j, 2], do.rate, ns)
df[j, 5] <- df[j, 2] - 2
df[j, 6] <- power.TOST(CV = CV[j], theta0 = theta0,
design = design, n = df[j, 5])
}
print(signif(df, 4), row.names = FALSE)
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- higher order crossover methodology sweiner 2020-06-30 01:07 [General Statistics]
- All dosed subjects have to be analyzed Helmut 2020-06-30 12:19
- All dosed subjects have to be analyzed sweiner 2020-06-30 17:08
- All dosed subjects have to be analyzed sedhosen 2021-03-16 08:30
- All dosed subjects have to be analyzedHelmut 2021-03-16 16:00
- higher order crossover methodology Relaxation 2020-06-30 14:10
- higher order crossover methodology sweiner 2020-06-30 17:10
- higher order crossover methodology ElMaestro 2020-06-30 18:17
- Fed (IBD) → fasting Helmut 2020-07-01 11:14
- Fed (IBD) → fasting sweiner 2020-07-07 03:00
- Fed (IBD) → fasting Helmut 2020-07-01 11:14
- higher order crossover methodology ElMaestro 2020-06-30 18:17
- higher order crossover methodology sweiner 2020-06-30 17:10
- All dosed subjects have to be analyzed Helmut 2020-06-30 12:19